Scientists warn that greenhouse gas accumulation is accelerating and more extreme weather will come

[Lord of Planar]

Hmmm. The Chinese Communist Party decided to get rid of the pollution. For example, SO2 peaked in 2006, now it’s about one tenth of what it was then.

SO2 is a reflective one that cools. Most of the others warm.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Why are you guys so easily lied to by the pundits?

It's reasonable for most people to listen to the experts.

The vast majority of the world's population is not ever going to do what we're doing.

We are probably the only 2 people on this forum, for example, downloading this data.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Now for some reason, the addition of my enforcement levels 1 to 3 in Excel from the data are 98.04% instead of the authors 97.1% I used the data form paper's supplemental file.

I can't find the data causing this discrepancy, but the article says there is a 4b category called "uncertain."

There is no "4b" category in any of the data files.

See PDF page 4.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Cook is another activist. He has another paper that breaks the scientific consensus down titled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature." the abstract:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed​

scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate​

change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed​

AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing​

a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second​

phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of​

self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,​

97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements​

among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that​

the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.​

This is misleading, and pundits claim the 97.1% are enforcing we are causing the greatest amount of warming. The data of the paper clearly does not support that narrative. That 97.1% only agrees we are causing at least some of the warming. Only 0.54% of the papers endorse the 50% or more quantification, and when you remove the papers with no opinion, it increases to only 1.61%. You have to download and unzip the supplemental material for this to be seen. I did just that and imported the file into excel. The data stopped at column F. I added columns H to J for calculations.

Only 64 of the 11,944 papers endorsed AGW at the 50% or greater level.'

The 97.1% figure is derived from categories 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and deliberately excludes category 4.

Category 4 is "no position."

Categories 1, 2, 3 are as follows:

1. Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%

2. Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise

3. Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it

Focusing on category 3:

AGW is Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is defined variously as:

"a theory explaining today's long-term increase in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere as an effect of human industry and agriculture."

What Is Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Anthropogenic global warming is a theory explaining today's long-term increase in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere as an effect of human industry and agriculture.

www.sciencealert.com

"Anthropogenic climate change is defined by the human impact on Earth's climate"

Natural vs anthropogenic climate change - Energy Education

energyeducation.ca

"Anthropogenic global warming is the name given to the rise in average global temperatures that is primarily attributed to human activity."

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) | Causes, Effects, & Strategies

This article introduces anthropogenic global warming - what causes it, how we're causing it, and why it's important to mitigate climate change.

www.carboncollective.co

These are quick, informal definitions. If you disagree, let me know.

Category 3 is the group of people who implicitly endorsed AGW in the abstracts of their papers while also not quantifying AGW in numerical/percentage terms, but Cook is saying these people are still qualitatively stating they support the theory of AGW. And Cook, in the abstract you cite, does not quantify it. You are forcing this 50% or greater quantification unto the study that Cook does not.

Cook then asked each author if his rating of their views was correct, and a huge number of them responded, over 1,000. That's a large enough sample size in my view. So, we can be confident that Cook's rating of the abstracts in Category 3 are accurate, and that the authors would agree with Cook that they were implicitly endorsing AGW.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

and when you remove the papers with no opinion

Something you should probably consider:

Many of these papers have no opinion because Anthropogenic Global Warming is not controversial.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The 97.1% figure is derived from categories 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and deliberately excludes category 4.

Category 4 is "no position."

Categories 1, 2, 3 are as follows:

1. Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%

2. Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise

3. Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it

Focusing on category 3:

AGW is Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is defined variously as:

"a theory explaining today's long-term increase in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere as an effect of human industry and agriculture."

What Is Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Anthropogenic global warming is a theory explaining today's long-term increase in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere as an effect of human industry and agriculture.

www.sciencealert.com

"Anthropogenic climate change is defined by the human impact on Earth's climate"

Natural vs anthropogenic climate change - Energy Education

energyeducation.ca

"Anthropogenic global warming is the name given to the rise in average global temperatures that is primarily attributed to human activity."

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) | Causes, Effects, & Strategies

This article introduces anthropogenic global warming - what causes it, how we're causing it, and why it's important to mitigate climate change.

www.carboncollective.co

These are quick, informal definitions. If you disagree, let me know.

Category 3 is the group of people who implicitly endorsed AGW in the abstracts of their papers while also not quantifying AGW in numerical/percentage terms, but Cook is saying these people are still qualitatively stating they support the theory of AGW. And Cook, in the abstract you cite, does not quantify it. You are forcing this 50% or greater quantification unto the study that Cook does not.

Cook then asked each author if his rating of their views was correct, and a huge number of them responded, over 1,000. That's a large enough sample size in my view. So, we can be confident that Cook's rating of the abstracts in Category 3 are accurate, and that the authors would agree with Cook that they were implicitly endorsing AGW.

No.

I am saying that when the pundits claim 97%+ of the scientists say the effect is 50% or greater, they are lying. The category 1 for that claim is only 1.6%.

 

[snakestretcher]

This has been repeatedly proven false.

Do you recall a certain female contributor banging on for months about Ivermectin being a surefire pandemic cure, and being repeatedly schooled but to no avail? History repeating post #718?

 

[snakestretcher]

No.

I am saying that when the pundits claim 97%+ of the scientists say the effect is 50% or greater, they are lying. The category 1 for that claim is only 1.6%.

Garbage.

Public hugely underestimate scientific consensus on climate change

99.9% of climate scientists have concluded human-caused climate change is happening

www.kcl.ac.uk

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities

science.nasa.gov

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the

science.nasa.gov

Feel free to offer your rebuttal, with qualification.

 

[Str8shooter]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/18/climate-change-threshold-15-degrees-sea-level/f52a4090-4c8f-11f0-8fff-262d6ec54ab9_story.html

View attachment 67575781


Thankfully the US elected the most anti intellectual and anti science regime possible that also wants to scrap FEMA. And the states that helped usher this in, totally aren’t the ones that will be hit the hardest by this.

Also thankfully the NWS is being gutted as well and this totally won’t impact the ability to track any of this weather accurately.

But hey, as long as developers and oil executive scum keep hoarding wealth to then hide in their apocalypse bunker, then everything is good and that’s all that matters.

Reference: An Inconvenient Truth!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Garbage.

Public hugely underestimate scientific consensus on climate change

99.9% of climate scientists have concluded human-caused climate change is happening

www.kcl.ac.uk

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities

science.nasa.gov

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the

science.nasa.gov

Feel free to offer your rebuttal, with qualification.

Typical. No sir, it is you who has the garbage.

Post a bunch of links you do not understand or quote. cannot explain. you are just playing "Simon Says" because you don't know better.

I reference my work, and said how I got the 1.6% and why.

Your are listening to the agenda lies.

My material came from one of the studies referenced in tour NASA consensus study.

J. Cook et al., "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature", Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Too bad you are too lazy and/or not versed in the sciences enough to understand.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Garbage.

<snip>

Feel free to offer your rebuttal, with qualification.

I know it is likely too much for you, but look here:

Post in thread 'Scientists warn that greenhouse gas accumulation is accelerating and more extreme weather will come'

Thursday at 2:28 PM

Verheggen et al(2014): 91% agreement that Greenhouse gases have made the strongest or tied-strongest contribution (out of different factors considered) to the reported global warming of ∼0.8 °C since preindustrial times

From:

J. Cook et al., "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming", Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Cook is another activist. He has another paper that breaks the scientific consensus down titled "Quantifying the consensus on...

• Lord of Planar

It's reasonable for most people to listen to the experts.

The vast majority of the world's population is not ever going to do what we're doing.

We are probably the only 2 people on this forum, for example, downloading this data.

Sure, the experts when they speck and take questions.

the problem here is the activists lie about what the science papers say. You are not listening to the experts, you are listing to punditry and lies.

that is what I showed with the Cook stuidy. you have to take the first three categories to add up to past 97%, and only the first of the three categories, at 1.6% is the one that states we created the largest effect. They other two levels of enforcement are only endorsing that we have an effect. An unquantified effect. It could be 0.000000001% of an effect, but it is still an effect.

 

[George50]

SO2 is a reflective one that cools. Most of the others warm.

True, but what’s your point? Warming was not the issue I was referring to. The issue is that in the comment I replied to you are blaming the Chinese for the reduction in cloud cover as follows:

Just look at the drop in cloud cover over the last 25 years or so, as China industrialized. It is their unmitigated atmospheric pollution doing this. Not the CO2. Remember few years back how smoggy all the Chinese cities were?

If not SO2 which has been cut by about 90% what are you referring to? China has been reducing pollution for the last 25 years or so, not increasing it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The 97.1% figure is derived from categories 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and deliberately excludes category 4.

Category 4 is "no position."

Categories 1, 2, 3 are as follows:

1. Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%

2. Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise

3. Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it

You repeated what is already in the Excel image I posted. Did you not understand it? I was only saying I got the 98+% when i ran the data supplied in the supplemental file. That file is 11,963 lines of text. Note in the image i pasted in, the file contains all 11,944 papers by Title, Journal, and Author if you wanted to go to the supplemental file and read all the endorsement level 1, which of course. Are only 64 papers out of the 11,944.

Category 3 is the group of people who implicitly endorsed AGW in the abstracts of their papers while also not quantifying AGW in numerical/percentage terms, but Cook is saying these people are still qualitatively stating they support the theory of AGW. And Cook, in the abstract you cite, does not quantify it. You are forcing this 50% or greater quantification unto the study that Cook does not.

Duh....

Haven't you realized the truth yet? Only category 1 is the endorsement level that claims we have more than 50% of the effect. This is why saying something like 97% of the scientists say antropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses are most the warming is a flat out lies, because the 97%+ scientists are only on board with agreeing that these gasses warm, without stating a degree of warming.

Cook then asked each author if his rating of their views was correct, and a huge number of them responded, over 1,000. That's a large enough sample size in my view. So, we can be confident that Cook's rating of the abstracts in Category 3 are accurate, and that the authors would agree with Cook that they were implicitly endorsing AGW.

Yes, that AGW is real without quantifying it.

I have been stating this for years. Are you finally realizing I am correct?

 

[Lord of Planar]

True, but what’s your point? Warming was not the issue I was referring to. The issue is that in the comment I replied to you are blaming the Chinese for the reduction in cloud cover as follows:

Just look at the drop in cloud cover over the last 25 years or so, as China industrialized. It is their unmitigated atmospheric pollution doing this. Not the CO2. Remember few years back how smoggy all the Chinese cities were?

If not SO2 which has been cut by about 90% what are you referring to? China has been reducing pollution for the last 25 years or so, not increasing it.

The pollutants are more then just SO2. SO2 reflects the sunlight and cools. Most the others absorb the sunlight and warm. Various aerosols will seed cloud formation, other aerosols will induce precipitation.

The mix of pollutants as a whole has reduce cloud cover, causing warming by having less sunlight reflected back out to space. More sunlight making it to the surface, heating it.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

No.

I am saying that when the pundits claim 97%+ of the scientists say the effect is 50% or greater, they are lying. The category 1 for that claim is only 1.6%.

To begin with, I don't think it's fair for you to denigrate Cook or portray Cook's abstract as misleading. Cook's abstract clearly, accurately described his survey's goals, methods, and results. Cook did not quantify the qualitative results of the survey. So, I don't think you should apply your criticism of "pundits," in general, to Cook's abstract.

With respect to your main point that the conversion of the qualitative information found in this survey into statements similar to the effect of "97% of scientists agree that the human contribution to global warming is 50% or greater" is misleading or false, I don't agree. I actually think it's a fair and reasonable restatement of the survey results with respect to communicating the survey results to the general public.

Look at how implicit endorsement is described on Page 3:

Category 3 - Implicit endorsement

Description: "Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause"

Example: "... carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change"

It just doesn't make much sense to sequester carbon if you don't think Humans contribute more than 50% to global warming. That's why Cook would put this sort of study into Category 3.

Let me give you some of my own examples through a Google search of the literature:

1. "The prediction of future temperature increases depends critically on the projections of future greenhouse gas emissions."

This statement makes logical sense only if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the main drivers of future warming.

Long Run Projections for Climate Change Scenarios

The prediction of future temperature increases depends critically on the projections of future greenhouse gas emissions. Yet there is a vigorous debate about how these projections should be undertaken

ideas.repec.org

2. "In this paper, we assess the CO2 emissions requirements for global temperature stabilization within the next several centuries..."

The focus on stabilizing the climate via CO2 emissions presumes that human caused CO2 is the key destabilizing factor.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL032388

These would be the kinds of studies Cook would have put in the category.

Furthermore, the people who disagreed with the idea that humans were causing global warming were put into the following categories:

• Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW (Category 5)
• Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify (Category 6)
• Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50% (Category 7)

The term Anthropogenic Global Warming itself implies that humans are the main driver of observed warming, and I would argue that is the commonly accepted definition.

Also, remember, everyone was invited to rate their own paper and assign the categories as they wish. Something like 10% of all authors responded to the second survey rating their own paper. Authors who disagreed with that premise were not lumped into the consensus, they were explicitly categorized as minimizing or rejecting AGW (categories 5, 6, and 7) , and this included those who believed the human contribution was less than 50%.

This is why the idea that "97% of scientists believe the human contribution to global warming is 50% or greater" figure is not a misleading restatement of Cook's survey results.

--

And the general idea that scientists agree humans are causing global warming isn't just based on this one study by Cook. It is backed up by other things as well. Other surveys of climate scientists show similar results, such as those who publish regularly overwhelmingly agree that humans are the main cause, other reviews of the literature similar to Cook's surveys find overwhelming support for AGW. Major scientific organizations like NASA and the National Academy of Sciences also say the same thing.

And, most importantly, the science is very clear, and where you see most disagreement, it comes from people on the periphery of climate science or those with ties to the fossil fuel industry. As an example, while a meteorologist has significant scientific training and practical experience, I would not necessarily hold their opinion in as great esteem as an actively publishing climate scientist. Also, with respect to engineers, petroleum geologists, geophysicists, or atmospheric scientists employed or attached in some way to the fossil fuel industry their views should be treated with greater skepticism, because their incentives and worldview are often shaped by the same industry causing the problem, so of course they will be biased against the idea they are causing the environment great harm!

 

[W_Heisenberg]

You repeated what is already in the Excel image I posted. Did you not understand it? I was only saying I got the 98+% when i ran the data supplied in the supplemental file. That file is 11,963 lines of text. Note in the image i pasted in, the file contains all 11,944 papers by Title, Journal, and Author if you wanted to go to the supplemental file and read all the endorsement level 1, which of course. Are only 64 papers out of the 11,944.

You are including the "no position" papers in your analysis. Cook did not do that. He excluded those papers. And he made that exclusion clear in his abstract. Cook included categories 1, 2, and 3 in his ~97% statement, which included quantitatively-expressed support for AGW, explicitly qualitatively support for AGW, and implicitly qualitative support for AGW.

Your position is that if a scientist did not explicitly state in their abstract -- which is what this survey reviewed -- humans are responsible for more than 50% of global warming than we cannot say that they think humans are responsible for more than 50% of global warming.

I don't agree.

There's also a flipside to your argument, only something like 3% of the surveyed abstracts, not in the "no position" category, explicitly or implicitly agreed with your view that humans are not responsible for more than 50% of global warming. Yet, for some reason, it doesn't dawn on you that that small, insignificant number is just as damning as the claim you're making on the other side.

 

[Lord of Planar]

To begin with, I don't think it's fair for you to denigrate Cook or portray Cook's abstract as misleading. Cook's abstract clearly, accurately described his survey's goals, methods, and results. Cook did not quantify the qualitative results of the survey. So, I don't think you should apply your criticism of "pundits," in general, to Cook's abstract.

With respect to your main point that the conversion of the qualitative information found in this survey into statements similar to the effect of "97% of scientists agree that the human contribution to global warming is 50% or greater" is misleading or false, I don't agree. I actually think it's a fair and reasonable restatement of the survey results with respect to communicating the survey results to the general public.

snip...

OK. I am done trying to convince you. You clearly fall into that faithful cult category.

The facts are so clear. This is repeated in other studies that show different levels of endorsement. You are using the cult-like religeous faith that category 2 and 3 are the same high endorsement as category one.

If you deny the science shown, then what more can I say.

Goodbye.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Haven't you realized the truth yet? Only category 1 is the endorsement level that claims we have more than 50% of the effect. This is why saying something like 97% of the scientists say antropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses are most the warming is a flat out lies, because the 97%+ scientists are only on board with agreeing that these gasses warm, without stating a degree of warming.

See post 815 for my response. I believe the explicit quantification of 50% or greater is unnecessary with respect to how this survey was conducted, and as it relates to communication of the survey results to the general public.

It's also consistent with other surveys.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Yes, that AGW is real without quantifying it.

I have been stating this for years. Are you finally realizing I am correct?

My view is that the generally accepted definition of AGW can be converted to a statement similar to "humans are responsible for 50% or more of global warming." I think that's a common, handy, practical definition of AGW, especially with respect to communicating to the general public where the communication of the various nuances aren't practical or necessary.

Further, my view is that your own take on this, that humans aren't responsible for more than 50% of the warming we are experiencing is a fringe, minority view that is most definitely not accepted by the scientific community, especially by the most reputable scientists. Further, and I mean no disrespect, I think you're more than a little biased. I think it's very clear you are involved in some way with the oil and gas industry, or some field that benefits from fossil fuels. And I want to be clear that I think that's a good thing, and I think oil and gas are necessary for our nation's security and economic prosperity. So, when I say this, I am not being disrespectful. I'm just saying you're probably biased. It's not a bad thing to be biased, sometimes it's just something one cannot escape. Everyone is a product of their environment to some degree. I include longview in this category as well. Also, I want to be clear, I don't think anything bad of you because you have a fringe opinion. Smart, educated, experienced people are not infallible. Sometimes smart, educated people can come to the wrong conclusion. I'm sure you've encountered other people in your career who are exceptionally competent, but also have goofy views on some topic.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Sure, the experts when they speck and take questions.

the problem here is the activists lie about what the science papers say. You are not listening to the experts, you are listing to punditry and lies.

This is John Cook. This is the person you're attacking. I am a little annoyed that you're attacking him because I respect him. He's also one of the main contributors to the website I've relied on most when crafting my rebuttals in these various climate science related threads, and I've been doing so to a great extent, to the extent I've been copying, or pasting, or paraphrasing the website articles.

Articles by SkS authors

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

John Cook is a Senior Research Fellow with the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change at the University of Melbourne. He obtained his PhD at the University of Western Australia, studying the cognitive psychology of climate science denial. His research focus is understanding and countering misinformation about climate change. In 2007, he founded Skeptical Science, a website which won the 2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prize for the Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge and 2016 Friend of the Planet Award from the National Center for Science Education. John authored the book Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change, that combines climate science, critical thinking, and cartoons to explain and counter climate misinformation. He also co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts and Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. In 2013, he published a paper finding 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, a finding that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron.

He has published over 20 peer-reviewed journal articles specifically focused on climate science communication, climate consensus, misinformation, or denialism.

He has published 3 books on climate science as well.

--

I don't think it's accurate to say "punditry and lies."

I think John Cook could most accurately be described as a science communicator. I think it's also fair to describe him as an activist, but I don't consider that a bad thing. If you believed the Earth was warming in ways detrimental to human civilization, and that humans are causing this to happen, how could you not act to prevent it from happening in some way? What kind of person would one be, if they knew this was happening, and did not act to mitigate it?

There is a big problem with communicating climate science to the general public. Climate science relies on dozens of different scientific disciplines. It's not easy for one person or a group of people to synthesize all the information. That's why we need generalists who spend their time collecting, categorizing, and synthesizing all the information into a coherent picture that they can then communicate to the general public. Someone like John Cook is one of the people who serve that sort of role. John Cook is the kind of person who synthesizes all the information he collects from the experts. Using the term pundit is dismissive. Would you call Carl Sagan a pundit? Would you call Ricard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson pundits?

And John Cook is not the one whose summaries of the science is out of line. His views are not fringe at all. Your views are fringe.

 

[Contumacious]

If it is science and facts, then Trumpers are out.........

My Orwellian Double Speak Dictionary - 2025 Edition - defines "science" when used by the Socialist Demon Rats as

"a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method"

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Sure, the experts when they speck and take questions.

the problem here is the activists lie about what the science papers say. You are not listening to the experts, you are listing to punditry and lies.

The vast majority of the human population does not have the time or the desire to read scholarly articles. It's just not ever going to happen, and when you insult individual forum contributors on here about that, you're just wasting your time.

The vast majority of scientists who publish do not have the ability or the time to serve the role of "generalist" and "science communicator."

Put practically and simply: most people, even the experts, don't have the time or desire to examine everyone else's paper, and most people, even scientists, do not have the practical skill necessary to communicate complex scientific ideas to the general public.

So, when you are saying "we are not listening to the experts," it's not exactly a fair comment. There aren't that many people commenting on climate science, in general. They're just doing their job, in their specific field, trying to get by, trying to do their job. They're definitely not arguing on a pseudo-anonymous discussion forum about politics.

Blogs like Skeptical Science and organizations like NASA, the IPCC, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, etc., serve as good proxies for this role.

Also, you say you don't agree with what these "activists" are saying, but I am not personally convinced of anything you wrote. I don't agree that these "activists" are lying. Who is lying? What are you talking about? Be specific, etc. If you're saying that it is impossible to arrive at the conclusion that humans are the principal cause of global warming, I would say you're just not looking at the science yourself. You seem to focus on a few key, standard anti-climate science talking points, albeit buttressed by significant practical knowledge in some science-related field. But I am not convinced of your argument. And I am definitely not convinced that any of these "activists" are acting in bad faith. However, I am convinced you are threatened by them.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

that is what I showed with the Cook stuidy. you have to take the first three categories to add up to past 97%, and only the first of the three categories, at 1.6% is the one that states we created the largest effect. They other two levels of enforcement are only endorsing that we have an effect. An unquantified effect. It could be 0.000000001% of an effect, but it is still an effect.

My full rebuttal to this point is in post 815 of this thread.

I think what you're doing by using the whole batch of papers as the denominator is dishonest in and of itself.

Cook said, explicitly, that the 97% was not based on the papers that had "no position." He made that clear.

Cook said, explicitly, which papers contained a quantitative measure and which categories contained a qualitative measure. He made that clear.

Cook said, explicitly, how he categorized the qualitative pro-AGW papers. He made that clear as well.

So, you're making up stuff he never said.

If you disagree with how he did his surveys, that's fine. But I think it's messed up for you to suggest bad faith on his part, when he was so transparent about everything.

Furthermore, if you accept the common definition of AGW that I've presented, it implies a quantitative measure of greater than 50%. I think a big part of the reason why the abstracts were not more definitive in terms of quantitative description of the author's opinion of AGW is that it is an accepted viewpoint in the scientific community that humans are the principal cause of global warming. It's not a controversial opinion. And there is not much of a reason for an author to put their own quantitative assessment of AGW in an abstract. And, it's also sort of moving target, and scientists want to be as accurate as possible.

Also, this isn't some one-off study. Cook's paper is not an outlier. We have lots of studies and surveys that point in the same general direction that the vast majority of scientists believe that humans are the principal cause of global warming.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Post a bunch of links you do not understand or quote. cannot explain. you are just playing "Simon Says" because you don't know better.

Fyi: this a forum comprised of general public, and it is not anyone else's fault that they don't understand or can't explain the science.

To the degree that you have this expertise, it is your informal social obligation to help others. So, stop insulting the other members of this forum with this approach you're taking. And you can't expect everyone else to just accept your opinion within the context of an informal debate about climate science. YOU have to do the work to explain the science to the members of this forum that may not have the knowledge, education, or expertise to fully understand every single thing being discussed. That's YOUR job. And I totally understand why you would not want to put in the work, almost nobody does. How many experts on the law do you see posting about contemporary, pressing legal issues, relevant to their area of expertise? I rarely see the topic and the expert connect on this forum. So, if you want to persuade others. If PERSUATION is your goal. You have to put in the work.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

These images are out of the Verheggen et al(2014) study. You keep saying the 97+% scientists agree the greenhouse gasses are "most" of the warming. Figure 1 says otherwise as that would only fit under the "strong" category. To top that off. most such papers are referring to what other papers already declare or imply

So, just right of the bat, for Figure 1, greater than 70% of the top scientists (publishing more than 31 papers) assigned the qualitative "strong warming" label, and that is a big deal. And if you believe in the idea that social proof is less relevant than expertise when forming a conclusion about some scientific idea, then this one stat alone should be evidence enough for you. These scientists are experts who know what they're talking about.

Greater than 65% of the scientists who've published more than 11 papers assigned the qualitative "strong warming" label, and that is a big deal.

Greater than 60% of the scientists who've published more than 4 papers assigned the qualitative "strong warming" label, and that is a big deal.

Greater than 50% of the scientists who've published between 0 and 3 papers assigning the qualitative "strong warming" label, and that is a big deal. So, even at this lower tier, AWG is clearly, unquestionably the majority view, of the scientists surveyed, and there's no way you can interpret it otherwise. Even by your own definition of how you're defining things you must accept that this paper says, of the scientists surveyed, the majority agree with the theory of AWG. So in that respect, with respect to this paper, with respect to this specific point, you agree with all the pundits and activists you condemn.

--

Yes, some respondents selected "moderate warming" instead of "strong warming" for greenhouse gases.

But that does not mean they rejected the idea that GHGs are the main cause of recent warming.

According to the authors:

"Responses were interpreted as “agreement” if GHGs were accredited with strong warming or with moderate warming if none of the other natural or anthropogenic factors were deemed to have caused strong warming. So, according to these respondents, GHGs were either the strongest or tied for the strongest contributor to global warming."

So when someone picked "moderate" for GHGs and didn’t rate anything else as stronger, the study counted that as agreeing with the IPCC’s view that humans are the dominant cause of warming.

That’s why the authors say:

"The similarity between the fractions as derived from Q1 and Q3... suggests that it is reasonable to interpret the answer option ‘moderate warming’... as agreeing with the IPCC."

And when you exclude "I don’t know" and similar responses, 90% of scientists with more than 10 climate related papers agreed with dominant human influence on climate, based on the question in Figure 1.

So if you are trying to use Figure 1 to claim that fewer than 90% of experts agree humans are the main cause, you are going against how the authors themselves interpreted their data.

I am showing the consensus view is not what people make it out to be.

Well, there's certainly nuance, but if you're going to talk to a member of the general public, you're not going to divide the responses of the experts into neat little, nuanced categories.

I think it's fair to say the vast majority of the scientific community believes humans are the principal cause of global warming, and that it can fairly quantified as humans contributing to 51% of that. And I don't think you're that far off, are you? You're not like at 1, 5, 25, 30% are you? Are you really that far off? Or, are you more like, we can't arrive at any conclusion at all?